Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, Jeff Smith, FL9AC

railtrailbiker
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:24 pm
Location: Bergen County, NJ

Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

Post by railtrailbiker » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:19 pm

Metro-North has no money for cross-Hudson rail in TZ Bridge project, says Karben

Assemblyman Ryan Karben of Rockland questioned Metro-North officials about the agency's plans to fund mass transit as part of any replacement or repair of the Tappan Zee Bridge during an Assembly hearing in White Plains yesterday.

In testimony before the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Metro-North President Peter Cannito said the Final Environmental Impact Statement concerning the Tappan Zee Bridge project will be concluded in 2007 or 2008.

Karben noted that Metro-North's capital plan extends beyond that time, to 2009. It makes no financial provision for anything beyond the planning phase that will conclude with the FEIS.

"The failure of the MTA to make a down payment for cross-Hudson rail in its next capital plan increases speculation that Tappan Zee solutions will be pollution increasing, rather than pollution decreasing," Karben said. "Unless a new or rehabilitated cross-Hudson span has a mass transit component, all Rockland will get is more pollution and traffic."

Karben, meanwhile, is introducing legislation with other Hudson Valley lawmakers that would double the voting strength of Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties on the MTA's Board of Directors from one to two collective votes.

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/MN_TZB-23Nov04.htm

nh chris
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: Riverside, CT

Post by nh chris » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:03 pm

Seems like a cheap shot by the pol to get his name in the paper. Why should MN "plan" for 2008-09 when the environmental plan won't be done for three years at the earliest? What good would this achieve?

Nasadowsk
Posts: 4009
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Post by Nasadowsk » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:49 am

Ok, I'm gonna ask the blindingly stupid question.

Once the tracks get to the west side of the Hudson:

<b>Where the heck are they going to go?!?</b>

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22275
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Post by DutchRailnut » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:34 am

Port Jervis and Steward Airport near NewBurgh
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

Lackawanna484

Post by Lackawanna484 » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:01 am

Yeah.

Rockland has been talking about rail and light rail links for years. Mostly, that they don't want them near their individual neighborhoods.

Ask a Rocklander, and they'll tell you they don't want their area to look like where they came from (Queens, Brooklyn, mostly). Ask the people in Monsey, who've been opposed to the Piermont line and extension of the Northern line forever.

Back in the ancient days, theyhad good rail connections.

Northern Line went up along the cliffs to the Tappan Zee and Nyack.

Pascack Line (NY&NJ) went thru Spring Valley, Thiells, and Haverstraw

Piermont Line ran from SF to Nanuet to the Northern and out Piermont dock

Rich Solano

Post by Rich Solano » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:04 pm

Ask the people in Monsey, who've been opposed to the Piermont line and extension of the Northern line forever.
Monsey? As if they have a stunning community as it is... :wink:

Lackawanna484

Post by Lackawanna484 » Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:05 pm

Rich Solano wrote:
Ask the people in Monsey, who've been opposed to the Piermont line and extension of the Northern line forever.
Monsey? As if they have a stunning community as it is... :wink:
They like it the way it is. Exactly the way it it is. (Visions of people lying on the right of way to prevent repairs to the washout of the Piermont Line, in the event anyone wanted to rebuilt it)

Lackawanna484

Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

Post by Lackawanna484 » Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:17 pm

WCBS summarizes the new list of alternatives for the Tappan Zee bridge. Two of the remaining six involve rail.

One has a pair of railroad tracks on the bridge, as a part of a Suffern to Port Chester heavy rail line. Big bucks

The other has a slimmed down version including only the SF to Tarrytown heavy rail, with light rail east of that point. Still a big bucks project.

http://wcbs880.com/topstories/local_sto ... 05713.html

pnaw10
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY - formerly New Hamburg

Post by pnaw10 » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:43 am

I see that the options involving rail will cost significantly more. But this bridge will probably need to last for at least the same 50 years the existing TZB has been there.

Even if it doesn't appear that Suffern-to-Port Chester rail service is a big deal now, it probably will be in the future. MNR is beginning to be more recognizant of the need for "reverse commutation" as well as people traveling reverse peak and so on and so forth. The days where commuters only go inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening are over. People need to get to different destinations at different times of the day. Right now, anyone wanting to get across Westchester County either has to use the bus, or ride down to 125th or GCT, then back up another line to their destination.

Having this cross-Hudson rail line could also be a benefit to those in Rockland County... if service across the Hudson and then down the Hudson Line would be able to get them to the city faster than their present train service through New Jersey.

I really hope the powers that be are smart enough to choose an option which includes rail. Even if the rail isn't completely constructed at the same time as the bridge, at least design the bridge so it can accomodate the tracks at a later date.

Getting into the rail options themselves, I also would support making it a heavy rail line, all the way through to Port Chester. That would allow more possibilities for trains to run to different locations. Light rail may be cheaper to build, but it would require its own dedicated rolling stock, and it would require passengers to make transfers, adding to the length of their trips.

The nice thing, though, is that the rail doesn't need to be built all the way to Port Chester in one shot. This is a project which can easily be done in segments, just to Tarrytown when the bridge is built, then to White Plains next, and Port Chester later.

Lackawanna484

Post by Lackawanna484 » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:58 am

It would be tough to get a buy-in from Rockland county interests on any cross-county rail link, light or heavy. Might be a little easier to gain OK from Westchester county pols.

andy
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: New York, New York

Post by andy » Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:43 am

pnaw10 wrote:Having this cross-Hudson rail line could also be a benefit to those in Rockland County... if service across the Hudson and then down the Hudson Line would be able to get them to the city faster than their present train service through New Jersey.
Depending on the speed, this would be a real possibility, as there is a good part of the county that doesn't really have rail service. Right now, people from New City, Nyack, Valley Cottage, etc all drive to the Nanuet Station to commute through New Jersey (still faster than the Tappan Zee).

However, if the terminal is going to be Suffern, then the Village might be concerned about any additional commuters going there. Already, Suffern has a big parking problem.

njt/mnrrbuff
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:33 pm

Post by njt/mnrrbuff » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:04 pm

There should be some sort of rail service on the Tappan Zee bridge from Suffern to Port Chester as well as convenient feeder bus service from surrounding communities. Virtually, you need a car going across the Tappan Zee but at least there is bus service Mondays through Saturdays. Yes, Suffern has issues with parking. There isn't a lot in the village. With this possible rail service, not only could one benefit from travelling between Rockland and Westchester but people could get places all over the greater NY Metropolitan area as well as upstate and new england.

JoeG

Post by JoeG » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:57 pm

The Rockland NIMBYS, who have lots of political clout, won't let the rail line be built across Rockland, even if the money could be gotten. Don't forget, they even stopped NJT from running equipment from Spring Valley to Suffern on the intact part of the Piermont Branch. But even if the NIMBYs could be dealt with, I can't see the state coming up with its share of the money for the project. Maybe a few years of $5 gas will change attitudes, but I see a cross Rockland railroad as many years away.

njt/mnrrbuff
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:33 pm

Post by njt/mnrrbuff » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:41 pm

If transit wanted to ferry it's equipment between S.V. and Suffern, the NIMBY's would really get their "wish" about seeing a hundred car freight trains roll through there towns. The cross Rockland rail line doesn't have to utilize the PVL period. In fact, to break it down, there shouldn't be any physical connection between the PVL and the proposed cross rockland link. The PVL is stopped by a fence in Spring Valley. Now the NIMBYs along the line don't have to worry about freights. The river line is only a few miles to the west from S.V. in W. Nyack.

Lackawanna484

Post by Lackawanna484 » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:02 pm

njt/mnrrbuff wrote: The river line is only a few miles to the west from S.V. in W. Nyack.
One of the local pols made his rep bashing the segment of the Piermont branch that links the Pascack Valley and the CSX River subdivision. Isn't that now a bike trail?

The distance is miles isn't much, maybe 3 miles. But the distance is attitudes is about 20 years...

Return to “MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail”